Homosexuality

[SMGS127]

No, you are wrong my view is that my sexuality does not dictate who I am. Sexuality is a small “personal” “intimate” part of who I am. It is a distraction rather than a focus of my personality, as it should be anyone.

I fail to see how my personal view on a matter and how I relate it to myself can be “wrong” since it is a licit position to hold in the Church. Just saying . I wasn’t applying any standard to you.

 

[kozlosap]

Galpin, more importantly, if you believe homosexuality is non-sinful, you are to abstain from the Eucharist.

That is absurd and not true. Believing that being gay is not a sin does not break any basic tenant of the faith. If I were to participate in a sex act that is not allowed by the Church, then I would have to confess before receiving the Eucharist. The “thought police” aren’t quite here yet. In addition, we all struggle in forming our true conscience.

 

[migueltojose]

That is absurd and not true. Believing that being gay is not a sin does not break any basic tenant of the faith. If I were to participate in a sex act that is not allowed by the Church, then I would have to confess before receiving the Eucharist. The “thought police” aren’t quite here yet. In addition, we all struggle in forming our true conscience.

These posts should have like buttons . . . *** like *** . . .

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Cristo Vive;11849114]RIGHT ON!!! I am a transgender Catholic. I honestly do not know much about gay marriage, because I’m not in their place.

One doesn’t always have to be “in their place” to know about an issue.

But they do have the right to be happy.

Not at taxpayer’s expense.

Just as I’ve chosen this path contrary to Church Teaching.

Those who live contrary to Church teaching should seriously consider abstaining from Communion.

When Jesus walked the earth He reached out to the marginalized, if He was here now He would probably reach out to the LGBT people.

He also did not condone sin. Do not let God’s mercy be an excuse to sin.

 

[Galbin]

Do you think that by telling homosexuals and others its not a sin and being a Catholic could cause scandal?

I don’t randomly go around tellling people my views on homosexuality. However, if they asked, I don’t see how they would assume that my views were the same as all Catholics. I have not said that my views are the same as all Catholics. My point to the OP is that I wanted him to know that not all practicing Catholics agree with the doctrine on this. In fact, most I know IRL do not agree with the doctrine on this matter. I understand however that American Catholics often see things differently to Catholics from other cultures.

 

[Galbin]

Galbin, we are not bound by the old covenant rules such as the ones you bring up. Time to brush up on the basics of the Catechism.

My point being that why is it okay to pick out parts of the OT that talk about homosexuality, but not the parts that proscribe the planting of two crops in the one field, or the wearing of mixed fibres etc.? I know you will say it is all about doctrine, but I disgaree with this apsect of the doctrine.

 

[Galbin]

Galpin, more importantly, if you believe homosexuality is non-sinful, you are to abstain from the Eucharist.

Wow. Just wow… Last I heard, we Catholics were allowed form our own opinions. Even if it were a grave sin to have gay sex, I myself am not gay. I am living with my husband after the sacrament of marriage, so I am not a “sinner”.

 

[Galbin]

What is condemned as sinful is homosexual acts. Indeed, all sins are condemned. (I accept you are in dispute with the Church over the sinfulness of homosexual acts.)

Telling a person they can never live out who they are is basically condemning them to a life of misery.

 

[Galbin]

RIGHT ON!!! I am a transgender Catholic. I honestly do not know much about gay marriage, because I’m not in their place. But they do have the right to be happy. Just as I’ve chosen this path contrary to Church Teaching. When Jesus walked the earth He reached out to the marginalized, if He was here now He would probably reach out to the LGBT people.

I agree. He spent time with prostitutes and lepers after all.

 

[Galbin]

Why do you think people are suing the Christians who don’t want to participate in gay marriage/commitment ceremonies? It’s about shaming people.

Who is suing Christians? Would like to read about this. Thanks.

 

[Galbin]

Not at taxpayer’s expense.

Huh? How does gay marriage affect the tax payer? The tax payer doesn’t pay for wedding ceremonies or receptions.

 

[Rau]

My point being that why is it okay to pick out parts of the OT that talk about homosexuality, but not the parts that proscribe the planting of two crops in the one field, or the wearing of mixed fibres etc.? I know you will say it is all about doctrine, but I disgaree with this apsect of the doctrine.

Galbin, the bible speaks against homosexuality in the New Testament also. Further, the Church - which Jesus gave authority to teach on earth - teaches that homosexual acts are sinful. I understand you feel compassion for those enduring SSA and you want them to be happy. But on what basis do you conclude that the Church is in error?

 

[Rau]

My point being that why is it okay to pick out parts of the OT that talk about homosexuality, but not the parts that proscribe the planting of two crops in the one field, or the wearing of mixed fibres etc.? I know you will say it is all about doctrine, but I disgaree with this apsect of the doctrine.

If you are interested in OT law, you may be interested to research some of the seemingly “strange” provisions you’ll find in Leviticus or Deuteronomy etc. The laws you will find derived from very particular religious customs at the time. For example, Linen was regarded as a cloth to be used in holy ceremonies and for holy purposes. Mixing it with a secular cloth like Wool was considered inappropriate. But these are laws - which can be changed. Church laws change in our time too. But matters of faith and morality do not.

 

[Rau]

Telling a person they can never live out **who they are **is basically condemning them to a life of misery.

I’m sure you don’t mean to say that a person is entirely summed up by the direction of their sexual desires? This is but one (albeit significant) facet of the person.

Keep in mind that the cause of SSA is unknown. But - just for the sake of this debate - what if the cause (for one individual) was found to be an adverse hormonal condition that arose in the mother’s womb, caused by certain drugs. Would this have any bearing on your view that the person should feel (morally) free to live out/act on the same sex attractions? - that is - is the means through which the SSA arose at all relevant to your view?

How should a person (heterosexual) who desires to be married behave in the event that they have not found a spouse after many years? Would you say they are free to take the opportunity of finding “love” where they can, in order to satisfy their emotional and physical needs, at least for a time? Would denying themselves these relationships be failing to live out who they are?

 

[Rau]

I agree. He spent time with prostitutes and lepers after all.

Indeed. And he encouraged the prostitute to sin no more. [Lepers had a disease.]

 

[Rau]

Who is suing Christians? Would like to read about this. Thanks.

Americans sue at the drop of a hat. There are instances of where shop keepers / service providers (eg. cake makers, photographers, etc) declined to deliver their product / service to a “gay wedding” and were legally prosecuted as a result. In some places, the law forbids operators from declining to provide service for various reasons including this.

There is a fine line for Catholics here because we are not permitted (I don’t have access to the exact words here…) to facilitate or promote or celebrate a “gay wedding”. IMHO. whether that actually should prevent a baker from making a cake for use at the “gay wedding” is debatable.

 

[Rau]

Huh? How does gay marriage affect the tax payer? The tax payer doesn’t pay for wedding ceremonies or receptions.

In some countries, tax laws provide a financial benefit to couples who are married. In other places, this is nil, or minimal, and the only substantive benefits flow when there are children (and marriage may or may not be a prerequisite).

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Hi waffle

Not every Catholic hates gay people or gay acts. In fact, many Catholics support gay rights. These Catholics do not tend to post much on this board, but I assure you that they do exist. I am a practicing Catholic, but I cannot get on board with the Church’s stance on this at all.** I do not believe homosexual acts are a sin. I also believe that people pick what they want out of the Bible. After all, if we are to take the Old Testament literally we should all be going to hell for wearing clothing made of mixed fibres (“Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together”) for planting a variety of crops (“Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed”) or for eating pork. We should also put children to death if they curse their parents, "For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; as is blood is upon him. "

Christianity is meant to be based more on the New Testament, and Jesus did not even once comment upon homosexuality.**

Blessings to you, waffle.

This directly addresses your misunderstanding of Scripture and erroneous reading of Catholic position and teaching. Please read it carefully.

Any Catholic who believes as you do or agrees with you is in need of correction.
,

 

[churchatheist]

A few comments from a non-Catholic:

I wish I saw as much energy directed towards preventing other sins like greed and sloth as I see directed towards preventing homosexuality. Why is this issue such a lightning rod? There are a lot of sins out there that aren’t getting their fair share of indignant preaching.

I also wish there were reason for homosexuality being labeled immoral. It seems to me that the main reason is that it is a “sin” or something of which God disapproves. But I believe morality should be based on the harm that an act causes. I see harm in theft, adultery, murder, greed, etc. I can see no harm in two people lovingly engaging in a homosexual act. Is it really immoral if nobody is hurt by it? (Also the reason I am perplexed by the graven images commandment.) I don’t believe the foundation for an ethical system should be “because God disapproves.” Unless there’s a reason that God disapproves, I remain unconvinced. (The natural law/procreation argument fails to persuade me.)

Lastly, I have to say that I’m also not convinced by the “hate the sin, love the sinner” position. I don’t doubt the sincerity of those that say it, but it seems an easy cop-out in this case. I never hear people say that they love the child molester or the serial killer.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A few comments from a non-Catholic:

I wish I saw as much energy directed towards preventing other sins like greed and sloth as I see directed towards preventing homosexuality. Why is this issue such a lightning rod? There are a lot of sins out there that aren’t getting their fair share of indignant preaching.

Your impression of what gets preached is slanted by what gets reported in the media. That, of course, would be the controversial topics - the ones that sell newspapers. Unless you have spent a significant amount of time attending mass yourself, you cannot really say what gets preached and in what proportion.

I also wish there were reason for homosexuality being labeled immoral. It seems to me that the main reason is that it is a “sin” or something of which God disapproves. But I believe morality should be based on the harm that an act causes. I see harm in theft, adultery, murder, greed, etc. I can see no harm in two people lovingly engaging in a homosexual act. Is it really immoral if nobody is hurt by it?

You have stated your definition of morality. Others have a different definition. A word means whatever the person speaking wants it to mean. But if he hopes to be understood, he would do well to use the same definition that the listeners are using. Since you are an atheist, it is no surprise that you think it is of no consequence what God wants. We who believe in God think it is of overwhelming consequence what God wants of us.

Lastly, I have to say that I’m also not convinced by the “hate the sin, love the sinner” position. I don’t doubt the sincerity of those that say it, but it seems an easy cop-out in this case. I never hear people say that they love the child molester or the serial killer.

So now you put yourself in a position to judge the sincerity of people. Only God knows what is in a person’s heart.